Not some personal reason. The evidence says it is settled.
You choose to believe in the questionable evidence presented by the WC, and consider the matter settled. As I said, feel free to dream on.
But the validity of such 'evidence' is far from being settled. - That is a fact.
I said "evidence". I didn't say "Warren Commission evidence". The House Select Committee on Assassinations did a remarkably thorough job of gathering and interpreting evidence as well. Do you know what they found? Oswald fired 3 shots from the TSBD, one of which missed and one of which was the head shot. The other caused all the other wounds.
You want to just wave away the evidence that says Oswald did it so you say the WC evidence is "questionable". Is it? Why? Because you say so? Because you don't like it? Sorry, you don't get to do that up front. You have to produce other evidence to support your theories. You don't even know what the WC says, yet you are sure it's "questionable". I think we can all see what kind "logic" that is.